| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Linus codes up a patch managerLinus codes up a patch managerPosted Apr 11, 2005 7:50 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: Linus codes up a patch manager by sbergman27 Parent article: Linus codes up a patch manager
It would be nice if people remembered
(a) BitKeeper was written in order to help Linus.
And very importantly, (c) BitKeeper fixes a class of problems that are both very expensive to solve, but cheap to reverse engineer and copy. If Larry didn't run BitMover as a commercial operation, he couldn't afford to employ the super-PhD class people he needs to solve the problems, and BitKeeper would never have been written.
BitKeeper is one of those problems that simple economic theory says is very unlikely to either appear, or be developed as, open source software. Namely it's expensive to develop, and cheap/easy to copy. So nobody is going to bother, because having spent the cash to develop it, somebody else is going to pinch the profit and all your money has been thrown down the drain. This is *EXACTLY* the problem that patents/copyright was invented for to solve, and this is *EXACTLY* the scenario where the use of such would be right and fair. It's to Larry's credit that he hasn't used patents and, if it weren't for the abuse committed by a minority of alleged open source people, he wouldn't be using copyright much either.
Cheers,
(Log in to post comments)
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 10:15 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Although some consideration of Linus' task was probably part of the design, Larry would not have coded Bitkeeper to "help Linus". As far as I could tell it's been intended as a commercial product from day one.And it's not at all clear to me that the people working on the other half-dozen Open Source programs that attempt to do the same thing are either super-PhDs or are leveraging off of the work of Bitkeeper. Even Tridge was only looking at Bitkeeper to be compatible with its over-wire protocol rather than to handle revisions as it does. I have met some of them, and they're smart, but no smarter than other folks who don't seem to have a problem working in Open Source. Finally, if software patents were employed in this space, they would probably be employed by Larry's former employer, for whom he worked on the same problem, against Larry. Bruce
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 11:12 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Although some consideration of Linus' task was probably part of the design, Larry would not have coded Bitkeeper to "help Linus". As far as I could tell it's been intended as a commercial product from day one. These things -- creating a commercial product and helping Linus -- have little or nothing to do with one another, and this has been mulled over a gazillion times. Bruce, as an Open Source leader you have a responsibility. People expect solid reasoning from you, not vague hearsay and accusations that are not at all backed by facts or at least a complete picture. So I kindly request that you share with us the information you have regarding Larry's motivations for writing BitKeeper. If you don't have that information, you would do well to at least pay Larry *and* Linus the courtesy of respecting *their* story, since they are likely to be a bit better informed than you are. If your hands are legally or otherwise tied, that will do too for an explanation. By the way, I intend to keep telling you this -- it's not the first time -- until you do me the small favour of returning a sane response. Before you jump to conclusions: this is not a hobby of mine and I have no agenda other than the proliferation of Free Software.
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 14:41 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Bruce, do you have a PhD? Are you aware of what sort of person gets a PhD?
I'm probably PhD quality, though I doubt I'd survive the course. I know I'm extremely bright. And from my contacts with several OS developers like Tridge (although not him in particular) I know that they're in the same class as me, if not better! (The main difference between me and them is they're probably a damn sight more meticulous.)
Oh - and I'm a Brit. I gather Americans consider our basic Batchelor to be the equivalent of their own Masters, although probably less so nowadays now that the degree system has been so thoroughly dumbed down. That was certainly the case though when I got my BA!
Either way, when Larry says he's got PhD class and better brains *struggling* to solve his problems, I find it only too easy to believe him. And those brains don't come cheap!
And when he says that the resulting work is simple to reverse-engineer, that again I find that only too believable - in my field (Chemistry) I was taught High-School chemistry at a level higher than what the PhDs were researching when my teacher was at Uni. Once the problem has been understood for the first time, it's easy to understand again. It's the first time that's the problem.
Cheers,
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 15:14 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I am not a PhD, but am recognized as a senior research scientist by a major university, which usually comes after being a PhD. I have also worked with many PhDs, between Pixar and my years at Pixar's predecessor. But unlike them, my expertise is not mathematics.Remember, we are discussing a text-handling problem, not superstring theory. And there is a great deal of applicable published work. This is not to say that problems aren't difficult to solve. It no doubt takes a lot of sweat to solve them. But perhaps not an advanced degree. I don't know what Tom Lord's education is, but I've found his work on this problem to be very creative. Bruce
Who made BK go closed/proprietary? Posted Apr 11, 2005 19:30 UTC (Mon) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] I don't think BK was "pushed into being closed proprietary" by "obnoxious" people. It seems that it was always intended to be closed and proprietary, but the vendor just took a few years to reveal that explicitly in the license.
Originally, BK was available under an almost-free license [1]. Later, an anti-competition clause was added [2]. Still later, you weren't even allowed to buy the commercial version of BK if BM felt you were a competitor. And "competitor" apparently could even mean someone who _advocated_ free alternatives [3], or the employee (Linus) of a company (OSDL) which hired a contractor who was not bound by the BK license and who worked on alternatives during off hours [4].
The BK license was never free, but it might have been bearable except for one fatal flaw: It could be changed at any time, and the changes would effectively apply retroactively to all earlier versions. Now *that* is worthy of the label "obnoxious".
Kevin
[1] http://old.lwn.net/1999/features/BitKeeper.php3
Who made BK go closed/proprietary? Posted Apr 11, 2005 20:19 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] The BK license was never free, but it might have been bearable except for one fatal flaw: It could be changed at any time, and the changes would effectively apply retroactively to all earlier versions. Now *that* is worthy of the label "obnoxious". Come on, don't be ridiculous. Have you ever read the GPL?!
Who made BK go closed/proprietary? Posted Apr 11, 2005 20:30 UTC (Mon) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] Yes, I have read the GPL. Once a piece of software has been released under the GPL, *that version* of the software will *always* be available under those terms. No future changes to the GPL will reduce your rights to use or distribute that released version. No future policy changes or relicensing by the author will affect that released version.
If you dislike the licenses of future versions, you can always choose to keep (and modify) the older version. That's true of most licenses.
Licenses that allow changes to apply retroactively to earlier versions are, in my opinion, particularly dangerous. The gratis version of BK falls (fell) into this category, because you are prohibited from running old versions.
Who made BK go closed/proprietary? Posted Apr 11, 2005 20:55 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] The point is quite simple. If you don't like the license: don't use the software. If the license is somehow at odds with the law: go tell a judge. If you impose your own restictions or added value to someone else's license: think again.
Who made BK go closed/proprietary? Posted Apr 11, 2005 23:28 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Let me add something along the same lines. (It is not directed at you in particular, Kevin. ;-)It amazes me that, after more than six years of intensive debate about all aspects of BitKeeper, people are apparently still shocked and outraged at how things have turned out. Worse, people seem to have been ignoring the quite obvious signs -- Larry's repeated statements about reverse engineering, the BitKeeper license and how it has changed, Linus' remarks about using BitKeeper, and so on and so forth -- right up until this very day. Basically it is really as simple as this: no-one is or has been forced to accept the BitKeeper license and use the software. This applies to all BitKeeper users, by the way, Open Source developers and companies alike. Of course, in practice, things are a bit more complicated. Linus Torvalds using BitKeeper is not the same as Joe Random Hacker using BitKeeper. BitMover may have been applying excessive pressure on companies or individuals with respect to what they -- BitMover -- regard as improper use of their software. And while kernel hackers have always had the option to not use BitKeeper, and victims of BitKeeper's aggressive license enforcement policy have always had the opportunity to seek legal counsil, in practice these things are complicated by other factors: peer pressure or lack of financial means to take BitKeeper to court, respectively, to name a few. The thing is: all of this is irrelevant now, like it always has been. If you didn't see this turn of events as a possible outcome from the very start, you are incredible naive, or you haven't been taking the signs seriously. It is irrelevant whether BitKeeper was written especially for Linus, or whether BitMover produced a commercial tool making clever use of the high profile gained by hosting the Linux kernel, or whether the BitKeeper license changes were morally just, and whether Larry's efforts to prevent reverse engineering would hold their own in court. People who keep insinuating that Linus was somehow tricked into using BitKeeper, and that BitMover has now shown its real face as a deceiving company, are either extremely naive or displaying a distorted view of the actual events for some other reasons (I guess a lot of the current anger originates in disappointment, which is understandable). Of course BitMover was thrilled that Linus decided to use BitKeeper. Of course Larry tried to help Linus by listening to him and adjusting BitKeeper to the needs of Linux kernel development. Of course those involved have made mistakes in the whole process. Of course this has always been a suboptimal marriage between a commercial product and Open Source: all the key players have said nothing else and all the evidence is out there, go read LKML and LWN for a starter. Suggesting otherwise is a gross injustice and an insult to both Linus, Larry and their respective intellects. It also makes you look foolish. It demonstrates that you can't or don't want to see the difference between actual events and the interpretations that inevitably pop up as a result of them, or that you are a member of the innuendo or spin doctor faction. Or it could just mean that you have found an easy way to get back at Larry. This doesn't mean that it is impossible that indeed, there was a Master Plan of ripping of Open Source, or that Linus was foolish to start using BitKeeper. But if this whole sad story breathes one thing, it is "compromise". If you can't see that, you'd better keep your uninformed opinions to yourself. And if you do know better, show us the evidence that sustains it.
Linus codes up a patch manager Posted Apr 11, 2005 20:55 UTC (Mon) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] BitKeeper was written in order to help Linus.That's not even close to being true. Bitkeeper existed as commercial software years before Linus was even willing to consider using SCM software. What happened was that once Linus explained his reasons for not liking SCM, Larry offered to enhance Bitkeeper to do what Linus said he needed (mostly "lines of development", but a few other things too. The "free" Bitkeeper license was added to support Linux development and encourage use by other open source projects. The Bitkeeper free license problems have caused problems for many people before this latest snafu. A friend at a company that is heavily into Linux was using Bitkeeper fully in compliance with the "free" license -- they had multiple developers, but all their commit logs were going to the open logging server, just as required. Larry decided that they were violating the "spirit" of the license by using it to work on software they sold (even though that software was in fact open soure), and demanded a big pile of money from them. They tried to negotiate, but Bitmover came to the negotiating table unwilling to compromise on the fee at all, so the company dropped Bitkeeper like a hot potato. I think it makes perfect sense for Bitmover to focus only on commercial business, and drop the "free" license, and for Linux to stop using it. At least Larry and Linus seem to still mostly be on good terms, so that Larry is allowing for a transition period rather than yanking the carpet out from under everyone. In the long run, this will actually be good for the free software community, because it will result in the development of free alternatives. It will probably take a long time for the free alternatives to catch up to the capabilities of Bitkeeper, but as long as there was the "free" Bitkeeper license, progress on free alternatives was very slow. Eric
|
|
||||||||||||